tv [untitled] July 7, 2013 1:00pm-1:31pm PDT
believe that there will be an increase in our salaries, in the fte count. we cannot assume all of the production; over the next fiscal year will hire two classes which we are grateful for, the pendulum is swinging in the resurrection to increase our staffing. we will have our projections and we will have it laid out for you; we send out an e-mail the other day. we will have a net increase of approximately 29 ftes, that is why we are concerned about the level of reduction that the budget is proposing at this time. >> supervisor farrell: if this sounds right there is a dispute of 359-- includes 15,000 dollars for encumbrances-- >> -- maybe you could be
precise and we could respond. >> i'm having to run through starting with the first recommendation related to stationary engineer, where there was a position and the budget analyst recommended a reduction of -- we would agree a total savings proposed 33,864. we also believe that position has already been accounted for in terms of attrition. so our numbers would not be the 112.914, rather 33,894 and we provide to technicians to the budget analyst and your office.
>> can we take one at a timemr. chairman? >> i want to discuss the first item. on the talk about those two pieces together, miscellaneous. the second one, 100,000 reduction and attrition savings of miscellaneous employees. >> are you talking about the 143? >> yes. >> we would concede that. >> the second point is that this is a long-term vacancy, not a necessary position in the department. i know the department things we are double counting in terms of the attrition savings. in fact we are not. when we look at the two numbers combined, we look at the attrition savings we look at the salary component, the mandatory fringe benefits is something that gets calculated
as it rolls for the budget system so we look at that separately. both of these are well within the salary budget and within the sort of their experience in the current fiscal year in terms of surplus and selling salaries. no we cannot double count those numbers. >> supervisor farrell: one thing is a policy debate about decisions, and another one not having the right numbers talking to each other. have you provided these numbers to the audit analyst office? >> no. we have been working together; however in the last week we had stalls candidly did not provide those numbers so it is challenging to see the methodology. >> within the disagree with
their numbers, that is the difference. we looked at the projected salary savings are, miscellany salary savings if you look at the 76,000 recommend a reduction in the stationary engineer and 100,000 dollars in attrition savings, 176,000 that is well in the expected surplus that they would have under the spending category this year. >> we have absolutely provided the rationale numbers to mr. -- that is absolute, 100%. >> if i could -- i'm sorry. go ahead. >> supervisor farrell: let me suggest this. we have one more department here, waiting out on the whole. and occ here, that i neglected to call earlier, my apologies. i suggested we call you back in a little while and in the
interim have you discussed with the budget analyst office so we can have some transparency in the numbers. again i don't have a problem having policy debates but when people don't have the numbers in front of them that is a problem. supervisor breed? >> supervisor breed: yes, i want to go back to overtime. mr. rose you provided a report to us back in april and based on their projections your suggestion was a reduction of almost half a million which we did. i'm trying to understand because i don't feel that i have enough information in front of me to understand exactly what happened, what is the difference between then and now, number one. number two, in terms of the minimum staffing requirement, does the overtime that is being requested exceed the overtime that has been issued over the
course of what is required for the minimum staffing requirement? and has that been looked at by your office? >> supervisor farrell: ms. campbell first. >> i'll respond to the supplemental appropriation. we based our numbers on the reasonably expected increases over the end of the year. >> based on minimum staffing requirements? >> looking at supplemental we were looking at the average spending per pay period per overtime, accounting for the fact that there were holidays coming up between that day and the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: i want to be clear. you don't take into account minimum staffing requirement so that over time does not exceed the minimum staffing requirement? >> yes we did. we looked at the number of ftes the expositions they have to
staff the fire stations as of that date and how it compared as of that data prior years, and how it compares to overtime spending as of that date and how it extends out to the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: how do we account for the discrepancy? >> they were spending at that pace through the pay period ending on may 24, the last pay period for which the data is not in yet, they were projecting significantly higher overtime. we had not seen in the original translations. they were spending 1.5 million in a pay period, higher than in any other pay periods in the academy have completed in january of that year and higher than the prior year during those months. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor breed, correct me if i'm wrong, that is not a
supplemental request per se, that is simply switching from salaries to overtime. there was also a discussion around the fire department saying that we dissipate, we did the same thing a few months ago shifting from salaries to overtime and the fire department anticipated they would have more than what is allocated.
>> we don't know all the reasons for that spike. they spent the money now at least they said they will spend it to the end of the pay period. we don't think that we made a mistake when we look at the projections several weeks ago. >> supervisor breed: are you suggesting this is money anticipated to take us to the end of the fiscal year or are we looking at an additional allocation of overtime support for the end of the fiscal year? >> it would close the loop on the fiscal year, simply moving one line item to the other. i know you want to move forward
but will stay here all afternoon however long you want us. clearly when we came in april there is a slight frustration because this was fully predicted by us. we know from history and trends that may and june we will be spending more in overtime; there is a higher absenteeism, and higher amount of retirement in june. this is absolutely predictable. i know we had a conversation with supervisor avalos this morning; there was a lot of theatrics in april that this would not happen, dead on. it is what it is. we appreciate the work that everyone has done; we were within about 19,000 dollars or without we would be, that is pretty good, not a science but we are moving forward. in the fire department a staffing cyclical and the needs in terms of overtime expenditures are different from month-to-month. we appreciate the work that was
done and now the recommendation that is very different from april and the recommendation of 400-some-od to cover the additional year but no additional funding request is made by the department this time. >> supervisor farrell: -- >> i want to reinforce that we made ballot isolations and accounted for all the assumptions of the fire department made. cannot control how they manage their overtime. >> supervisor farrell: okay. questions or comments at this time? i know for the record i know
there was a dispute a few months ago; the way the process unfolded to me is completely appropriate. t we agree what we could agree upon a few months ago and now we are back. on where the other is completely appropriate the way it has gone down.. one the make sure everyone's on board with the numbers and then we'll call you back and look at. ms. hicks, thanks for waiting. my apologies for not calling you your the police department. >> good afternoon supervisor farrell and members of the finance committee i understand why the occ was overlooked because we are part of the police department but we are separate in how we manage our budget. since last week's heairng we
did reach an agreement of the minds. we did not have an agreement of the minds on the vehicle for just but i do understand that the board of supervisors, or your committee is taking a closer look at the healthy and clean air transportation ordinance. particularly for departments such as mine that only have two vehicles other clarify with the department of environment the for small fleet such as mine the five percent per year reduction for four years for 20% reduction would not apply to the two vehicles that we have because that result in a 50 percent reduction. i did also clarify that the vehicles at the occ don't qualify as public safety vehicles for an exemption such as the police department
vehicles, fire and sheriff. as i indicated last week, because our vehicles are over 12 years old they would have to be retired by june 30th, 2015. they do not have high mileage and each fico has about 55,000 miles on them. there is currently no exemption for the vehicles under the ordinance . should the ordinance not be amended to accommodate our vehicles our continue to urge the board of supervisors to approve the replacement. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you ms. hicks. we don't have a separate report; this is contained within the police department, correct? okay. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. okay.
>> that does not make any sense. >> no. >> whoever leaves the department, we or once someone leaves a department. >> at that point, we are not going to be able to back flow. >> that is my point, if no one leaves for $275,000 in the hole. >> we disagree with your calculation and we have provided you with our analysis and we totally disagree. >> supervisor breed. >> we just approved the supplemental a couple of months ago and there should be sufficient savings from that approved as well. and i am trying to understand where that went. >> so those savings will stay
in the current year and will not be carried into the next fiscal year. >> it will all are spent? >> it will go back to the general fund. >> thank you. >> avalos? >> okay. >> so, are there any other questions, colleagues? >> so, we have heard from the budget and legislative analyst and it sounds like there is a disagreement on this $270,,000. >> exactly >> at least. >> we do have this discrepancy, how do you want to handle this? is there a motion? >> a motion to the budget analyst recommendations. and so i will second that as well. so, shall we have a roll call on that item? >> why don't we wait for a few
minutes, are there any questions further questions? >> okay. >> you have enough in the budget to cover that? >> or not? >> if this cut does not go through, yes? >> and it is unlikely that if the reality is that if people will leave because, and we will not be able to backfill, certainly the equivalent to the attorneys, given this reduction. and that is why, we are not in
agreement. >> it has been as low as four percent and as high as ten percent and i believe that it is seven percent now in terms of what is budgeting. >> okay. so i mean just to be clear, this is basically to provide some cushion, from your perspective. and well it is to insure that we remain whole. i mean that we are, as a supervisor breed asked earlier, what happens to the money from the supplemental from last year and that money going back to the general fund. clearly if there is any cushion, we will go back to the general fund. we just would prefer not to be on a situation where we are midway through the year and we are coming to you and saying that we need a world of spending because we don't have the money, you know, the alternative will be that it is